January 3, 2008

Are you watching? I'm hanging out with CNN, where Wolf Blitzer is talking about entrance polls. (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a tight race, with Edwards trailing.) They've got a camera at a 53-person caucus that's taking place in someone's living room in Persia, Iowa. It's folksy and boring. And every single person is white.

UPDATE #1: Now, we're wandering the hallways of a middle school, where there are are caucuses in the gym, the cafeteria, the library, and the auditorium. CNN is doing some terrific camera work with a journalist in the hallway, swaying about under a curved ceiling with a lighted trophy case in the background. They've got a nice Americana vibe going. White Americana.

UPDATE #2: It's a Norman Rockwell illustration. Don't you love these people? From that middle school hallway, we're hearing a description of the human drama of having to abandon the sticker of your first choice and stick on the second choice. Now, we're being told there are lots of women, older women. And 60% of the Republicans are evangelical Christians.

UPDATE #3: Bill Bennett offers commentary "as a former philosophy professor": "We've been watching pictures out of Kenya, of people with machetes killing each other, watching pictures from Pakistan, the Bhutto thing. People like to make fun of Iowa, but there they are, in their homes, you know, welcoming each other and talking. There's no violence. There's no killing. There's no imposition of will. It's a great country. It's a great system. An incredible thing."

UPDATE #4: "It's a clash of generations of epic proportions." 17 to 29 year olds are 57% for Obama, 11% for Clinton. With the over 65 voters, Clinton is at 45% and Obama at 17%.

UPDATE #6: Maybe I should be watching Fox. I see from the NYT blog that Romney just conceded on Fox.

UPDATE #7: "Did you want to knock his teeth out?" Chris Wallace asks Huckabee's campaign chairman Ed Rollins, referring to this story. Wallace also asked him about this Town Hall blog that reports an evil conversation of his that was overheard. Rollins admits it all but says it was a private conversation with his wife. Rollins has an insanely nasty edge that's totally at odds with Huckabee's image. This is how he acts when he's just won a big victory? The hell? From that Town Hall blog: "He distinctly talked about going negative in South Carolina and told someone on the phone to 'put some good in there if you have to, with the bad. Do what you gotta do.'"

UPDATE #12: Giuliani on Fox, talking to Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. How to not seem irrelevant? The words "Tested. Ready. Now." appear on the backdrop screen behind Giuliani's glistening pate. Colmes is badgering him about various policies and scandals. Not enough about the amazing Huckabee.

UPDATE #13: It's John Edwards. "The status quo lost, and change won. And now, we move on..." He's almost claiming Obama's victory as his own.

UPDATE #14: Hillary speaks. Thanks for voting ... for a Democrat....

UPDATE #15: Dodd drops out. Do we even care if he endorses someone?

UPDATE #16: Huckabee speaks. With Chuck Norris at his shoulder. "A new day in American politics." The banner behind him reads: "I like Mike." We need to be more concerned "about going up" — he says, pointing heavenward — and not just to the left or right.

UPDATE: #17: Finally, Barack Obama. "To end the political strategy that's been all about division, and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition...."

UPDATE #18: Biden drops out.

UPDATE #19: What a night! It feels historic, doesn't it? Not just for the reason stated by Juan Williams (see update #10), but because the old, predictable candidates were upset, upset by 2 fresh, new individuals who, it seems, invented themselves and succeeded by revealing what they were to us.

And after 30+ years of Evangelical involvement, including extensive Evangelical education and participation, I wonder if tonight is the night that I finally acknowledge I am no longer an Evangelical. I might share the same basic creeds, but I'm not of the same movement as anyone who votes for Huckabee.

Gad, how I hate Bill Bennett and stupid comments like that. Yeah, except for all that Tory vs. Rebel violence during the Revolution and that little dust up that cost 600,000 lives; we settle our differences peacefully.

But we're not Kenya, we're even better than El Salvador! Hurray for us and hugs for everybody!

If you are so down on America that you can't see that we, the people here and now, are able to settle things peacefully, and have for longer than practically anywhere is else, is a good and remarkable thing, then, in the words of Buzz Lightyear, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell. "

Father of Teen Wolf Blitzer said ..."What a dramatic, dramatic win (for Huckabee)." Bullshit - I'd compare it to an unknown pitcher pitching one scoreless inning in spring training. In three months, most people won't remember who the frig Huckabee was.

if you are so down on America that you can't see that we, the people here and now, are able to settle things peacefully, and have for longer than practically anywhere is else, is a good and remarkable thing

Good, yes. Remarkable, not really. What is remarkable is that Bill Bennett has managed to make a career out of mouthing such smug banalities.

Bennett, a member of the Ruling Elites that thoroughly corrupted the inside the DC Beltway process, is the last person to comment on how wonderful the present corrupted process for selecting Presidents by Iowan and NH activists unrepresentative of the US mainstream is. Peaceful? Yeah.

So were the selections of European royalty and Soviet apparachnik functionaries until things collapsed in revolution and system failure. Hereditary barons and Soviet Central Committee members also marveled how wonderful their system was without all the "conflict" of lesser nations. Then they failed and were gone.

Are we to presume that selection of a guy with 1 year of national office experience, no executive experience never having been in the military or a full time private sector job is a triumph of "American political genius". Or Pastor Huckleberry?

I'm confused. Was that post complaining about hereditary barons and central committees and similarities with the current state of affairs here, or bemoaning that the decision making process here is decentralized to where people in a given state can cast their ballots for who they like?

Just this morning pundits were predicting he would be out of the race.

But, no, sir, it's not good night for Fred.

Not by a long shot.

Now it's on to snowy New Hampshire where the betting is that Fred will do even better.

In America if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. That's a lesson Fred learned well on the playing fields of his public school and at his mother's knee. Yes, at his mother's knee. A saint she was.

"Although the Iowa caucuses are more than a century old, their national impact on the selection of presidential candidates is a fairly recent phenomenon.

It generally is agreed the success enjoyed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976 gave tremendous credibility to the caucuses, although they did receive passing attention during George McGovern's candidacy in 1972, when the South Dakota Democrat finished second to Edward Muskie but later won the party's nomination."

Hmm. More than a century old, but wasn't considered nationally important. Maybe if it had been, then we would have avoided that whole Civil War thing.

Then again, maybe after 4 years of Carter, we should have decided that listening to Iowans wasn't such a swell idea after all.

Wow, looking over the list of winners by year is not an encouraging thing.

Democrats:72-- Muskie, followed by McGovern. Actually, the real first place was 'undecided.'76-- Carter. Thanks Iowa! You shouldn't have!80-- Carter again, showing that they just didn't learn.84-- Mondale.88-- Gephardt.92-- Harkin. Damn homers.96-- Bill Clinton. They got one right, but needed him to be running unopposed for it to happen.00-- Gore.04-- Kerry.

Only once did Iowa choose who ended up being President. And it was an unmitigated disaster.

Republicans:76-- Ford over Reagan.80-- Bush over Reagan.84-- Reagan. They got another right! But once again, it took him running unopposed for it to happen.88-- Dole92-- Bush. They liked voting for this guy, just not the year he actually won.96-- Dole. If at first you don't succeed...00-- George W. Bush. And we know how that worked out.04-- Bush, unopposed.

It looks like more times than not the Iowa Caucuses do not choose who will be President. I see five times that President came from winning the Iowa Caucuses-- and two of those times it was when the guy was running unopposed in the Caucuses. And the other times, the candidates were Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush.

Joan: The "existential identity crisis" is nothing to worry about; it's merely referring to the fact that while I have been a registered voter since as soon as I could be (sorry for that awful prose) and a dedicated and diligent voter ever after, I have never been a registered Democrat or Republican, and I've never self-identified that way. (Still don't, btw.)

Anyway, I've got to tend to the kid, for a bit, who's up later because I took him with me and now he needs to get to bed.

I will tell you, having watched the Iowa caucuses for many, many, many years (not just personally, but, at what time, as a journalist), I was STUNNED that I was calling my husband to come pick us up barely 1 hour, 15 minutes after he'd dropped us off.

The GOP does have a strong Jesus freak constituency. Where are the homeschoolers gonna go?

Mitt? Heretic liberal in conservative clothing. Rich man's son brings up the eye and camel question.Giuliani? Heretic liberal in conservative clothing.Mc Cain? Not a conservative. And isn't he divorced?Thompson? Good conservative with a bimbo wife.

I love the fact that Romney lost big time after spending all of that money. That is absolutely delicious.

I also love the fact that the republicans are in an uproar because a christian evangelical, who is not the tradional republican won. You bitches supported this monster over the past 7 years now deal with it. At least they hate the gays though.

What are you going to do with these evangelicals now? They need love and nurturing, now go suck on their tit.

What's most amazing to me is that until Juan Williams said something about the race of Obama, very little had been made of the racial dynamic. Wouldn't it have been nice if Obama had been able to celebrate his victory as a candidate based on his performance and not his skin color?

I guess that's why I hate identity politics.

Wouldn't it have been nice for Williams to simply acknowledge that Americans (even if 95% of them are white in Iowa) care less about race than Williams does? That would be truly refreshing.

The GOP does have a strong Jesus freak constituency. Where are the homeschoolers gonna go?

Excuse moi? Future homeschooler here, and not a Huckabee supporter. Plenty of people homeschool because they can provide a better education than their area schools, not because they're trying to keep their kids away from science class. No need to impugn them all as Huckophants. Well, if that's what you were doing; I may have misunderstood.

Freeman Hunt, you may not be an evangelical, but if you start to deal with any homeschool associations you will realize what a minority you are.

I run in evangelical circles. The media seems to have redefined evangelical to mean fundamentalist. The evangelicals I know are not supporting Huckabee, and, as far as I know, they believe in evolution. Fundamentalists are another story. Perhaps I will find plenty of fundamentalists in homeschooling circles, but I wish that fundamentalists were called fundamentalists and evangelicals were called evangelicals.

You republicans that have nurtured or ignored them over the past 7 years now have to deal with them. You sucked on the evangelical tit over the past 7 years that Bush and Rove created now deal with this monster.

OK, I'm just going to spit out some observations, with no pretense of attempting a coherent whole, between interruptions from a number of fronts.

1. When my husband dropped us off at the caucus site, he had to back out of the parking lot (not entirely cleared) back onto the street from whence he'd turned because every real spot and every possible spot, including one blocking the thru-way street, was taken. My understanding--which is why we cut it close, living so near--is that this has never been an issue at that site (and also others.

2. While I am sure I will be able to verify the following more precisely (because, it turns out, the person elected to chair the caucus is the father of the wife of the bass player in a rock band of which my husband was a part until early this year--so Iowa), it appears that at least in this precinct, there was a ***remarkably, totally unanticipated**** larger turn-out than expected. The people in charge of registering were sweating to get the job done by the cut-off. (I, myself, a very fast form-filler-outer, had to push, given when I was handed the phone.) More to the point, the person who was elected chair noted that some (non-essential, in terms of the caucus business, itself) material which regular were expecting was unavailable. Bottom(-ish) line: Something like 100 to 125 more people turned out at this precinct to participate than were expected--and the official count of participants was 252. The raw number, either way, is small ... but, as I think Althouse commenters can recognize, the statistics of that is, at the very least, rather interesting, when you compare the expectation with the actual.

Birkel said:"Wouldn't it have been nice for Williams to simply acknowledge that Americans (even if 95% of them are white in Iowa) care less about race than Williams does? That would be truly refreshing."

I disagree with you. I saw that segment and Williams said it in a laudatory manner. He was praising the voters and it is his job as a commentator to make observations. This is an historic primary if Obama has won! no matter what you think. IMHO Juan Williams is not a race baiter nor does he comment only on race aspects of an issue. He brings a lib perspective but that is his job just like most NPR employees, Paul Begala, Cynthia Tucker from the AJC, Paul Krugman, etc.

If you are so down on America that you can't see that we, the people here and now, are able to settle things peacefully, and have for longer than practically anywhere is else, is a good and remarkable thing, then, in the words of Buzz Lightyear, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell. "

Wow, I didn't realize being a Good American required approval of Bill Bennett's smug, vapid, remarks.

First, his remark was insulting to the people of Kenya, who have been trying for 40 years to become a stable democracy. They are struggling with problems we can't imagine.

Second, boasting about how great the USA is because we're *not* Kenya, is pathetic.

Thirdly, we now settle things peacefully because nothing is *really* at stake. In the past, this was not the case. And compared to most of the world we're all rich, dumb, and happy. So, if Huckabee and McCain supporters aren't hacking each other to death it shouldn't be surprising or commented on.

phone: FORM, not PHONE. While typing that comment, I was considering whether I should shoot to Althouse a snap or two I took on my iPhone, which reflect--due to where I live--the definitely NOT "white people only" picture of the caucus I attended.

Sorry ... but any of you who you have regularly read my comments know that part of reader_iam's commenter persona is the typos.

Huckabee made a very good victory speech. He's smooth, articulate, and folksy. He's clearly bright.

Edwards' speech was a leftist rant. I believe that this signifies that his campaign is basically over.

Hillary is finished.

Obama is just not very impressive. He speaks in vague generalities. "Choosing hope over fear." What does this mean? Hope for what? Fear from what? Blah blah. He's making grand promises now. A lousy speech.

Obama said..."To end the political strategy that's been all about division, and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition...."

Oh yeah - division is a result of a political strategy. Moron or liar, you decide. What an embarassment this man is, and what an embarassment for Iowa - for the nation - that thirty people let alone percent voted for him.

(Before I follow up on #3--and maybe I don't need to, or oughtn't; should I?):

4. The most somber and then dejected (and something else I can't quite put my finger on) people in the room, even before things got well under way, were the supporters of Sen. Clinton. Before I realized what was going on, this surprised me, a bit.

In the precinct in which I was participating, Sen. Clinton didn't achieve "viability": not initially, not ever, and it wasn't close. In the case of this specific precinct, viability required at least 38 people. She started at 29 (which, under typical circumstances--I'll try to get to that--ought to have meant that group could easily get to at least the viable number, by scooping up the less viable and the initially undeclared), but lost rather than gained declared supporters in the second round.

If I were to look at things, much less characterize them, in the way you are, I would say the same thing about even reluctant support of Huckabee support from someone of your profile. But I don't. Because it's not that simple, and regardless, that ain't how real people in real life do things.

At one point in the Obama speech his supporters were chanting "USA, USA." I disagree with other comments. He does a really good job of making compromise and less partisanship seem possible. He talked about how 9/11 should have brought us closer as a nation, but hasn't.

It's a post-caucus speech, not an inaugural, but I thought he did well. It's too soon for me to Google and link the text.

Well, I have just about as good as Evangelical bona fides as possible so for what it's worth I'm going with the bimbo wife.

If Fred gets some momentum, he'll be doing fine. Just as Huckabee got momentum during the straw poll a while back. Word around that I'm hearing is Southern Evangelicals aren't quite as sold on Huckabee, and I can't see them swinging towards Mitt or Rudy.

Titus: I haven't yet had a chance to look at all the stats, so I can't comment on what you're referring to, except to say that, in Iowa, it takes MUCH more targeted effort and time to participate in a caucus (and especially THIS year, due to the DATE), than to vote. While history would suggest that in the end there is no new ballgame, and (due to my conservative tendencies) my skepticism more than tends to embrace that stance as a general rule, that doesn't mean it will be inherently and forever and always the end-of-story last word.

You know the really sucky thing about this? I have to give money to Hillary now. Because now there are actual votes cast, it becomes apparent that people actually take this... this... this fucktard seriously. So he has to be stopped, he has to be stopped now, and if that means giving campaign contributions to Screwtape to stop Wormwood, so be it.

Titan said..."He does a really good job of making compromise and less partisanship seem possible. He talked about how 9/11 should have brought us closer as a nation, but hasn't."

You know the really sucky thing about this? I have to give money to Hillary now.

But as a non-Democrat, aren't you glad that they picked someone who doesn't constantly obfuscate his positions? At least we can contrast with someone like that. Hillary's such a chameleon that I think it makes it hard to have much of a political dialog.

Alan said..."Yeah that's right, Simon. There's no politics of division coming from either side. Never mind the Clintons 'vast right wing conspiracy' rhetoric or Ann Coulter's calling all Democrats 'Godless.'"

Alan, division comes from people being divided on issues that are deeply important to them. As I pointed out a year ago, consider abortion, for example: Whichever side you come down on, abortion is an extraordinarily important issue: depending on your convictions about when life begins, either there is a significant-sized (and growing) movement in this country to shackle women with a totally unjustified and massively draconian burden, or there has been a thiry-year holocaust that has claimed in excess of 40,000,000 children's lives. People complain that abortion is too divisive an issue ... [but i]t should be divisive. This issue is extraordinarily important." Taking away the rhetoric won't take away the division, and without any credible indication that Obama has the slightest interest in compromising on these important and divisive issues, what his high-flown rhetoric boils down to is exactly what every democratic candidate's rhetoric boils down to. Politics of hope? Politics of deceit and/or self-delusion.

I am dreading the media dunces for the next six months acting all surprised that we slobbering bigoted White People have voted for a black man.

He seemed more strong or something tonight, but his message didn't: hope, change, uniter, change, coming together, change...and surrender in Iraq. It sounded like a speech put together by the Leftist Candidate Computer Program.

I wonder what George Washington's logo and campaign song would have been?

Oops! Sorry, between ordering food and contending with my husband--who, for whatever twisted sense-of-humor reason, keeps saying "Gee! I get to sleep with a new woman tonight! It's like you just came home with your hair dyed a new color! [Sigh.] --I got distracted.

5. My favorite quote of the evening: "They keep saying we never go to caucuses."

Simon, you're reaction to Obama is overwrought. He doesn't have what it takes to win the presidency. Besides, his nomination will ensure a Republican victory in November, something I'm sure you will agree is a matter of no small importance. How you would even consider supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is a complete mystery.

What possible justification could you, or anyone else, have for calling Jeri Thompson a "bimbo"?

Anyway, while it is annoying that Huckabee won, I can at least console myself with the knowledge that it is probably all downhill for him from here. Plus, Ron Paul got his ass handed to him, which is nice.

Gedaliya said..."How you would even consider supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is a complete mystery"

1) Because next to Obama, she's realatively un-phony;2) Because in terms of policy she is no worse than Obama on any issue;3) Because while none of the Dem candidates will prosecute the war on terror ably, Hillary fights for our values in spite of herself. Being the female President of the most powerful country on Earth is ipso facto striking a blow against Al Queda's worldview. You have to think about the medieval way in which the Islamic extremists view women and their role. Just as I think there's something faintly gratifying about assigning female lawyers to defend those who complain about their female jailers, I think there's something a little gratifying about the idea that when Johnny Insurgent sees a squad of U.S. marines coming for him, the marine is there on the orders of a President that the insurgent would have locked away in a Burqua and a harem. So if it has to be a Democrat, I'd rather it was Hillary, and I hope she conducts her middle eastern diplomacy not in a headscarf (a la Pelosi) to show respect to those who deserve none, but in a bikini to show richly-deserved contempt.4) Because she's smarter, more honest and more capable of doing the job than Obama;5) Because if any democrat has to win, it might as well be one I can make caustically lusty remarks about as a coping mechanism.

Thanks, Reader - interesting comments. Too bad you could not live-blog the experience - would have been much more interesting than most of what I've read.

Miscellaneous notes about the evening:

RE: idiotic reports about religious affliation of GOP caucus-goers: I believer that the Lutheran and Methodist and Presbyterian churches are all considered evangelical. It is no surprise that almost all of the dunces interpreting the poll data haven't got a clue because to them, religion is evil (unless it publicly supports whatever cause they believe in at the moment, then its ok, for the moment).

Everyone trying to make a big deal out of Juan Williams's remark sure knows nothing about Juan Williams. There seems also to be a lot of wishful thinking that the only reason Obama got those votes is because he's half-black. It's not.

It seems to me that the big losers are Edwards and Romney. Edwards spent so much time in Iowa that he ought to be forced to file a resident income tax return for the past two years. Despite an unprecedented expenditure of time in the state, he only managed an unimpressive second place showing. Ron Paul's showing at 10% is equally unimpressive. Supposedly he was bringing all these new voters into the party. (Looks like they went elsewhere tonight.) Despite all the hoopla like the blimp and all the free press attention, he didn't get far.

Simon's words are over-the-top but the message is accurate for those willing to check the record: Obama's idea of "compromise" is to accept his position and not interfere. Anyone who disagrees is "dividing the country." His voting record and his speeches are the proof. No compromise to be found - just platitudes. Rather like George W. Bush, actually: in his "either you're with us or you're against us" way. Obama just sounds nicer when saying it.

I'm a girl, Titus, and so, technically speaking, I don't **possess** a hog.

As for my husband: it's NOYDB, and a nyaah-nyaah--nyaah to you.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that (this is still for YOU, Titus):

6. Of the original nine Biden supporters, three, to the bitter end, refused to re-align elsewhere (thus, in delegate or convention terms, opting out of the final count altogether). All three--as it happens--were people I recognized, from the neighborhood. Two were a male gay couple. One was a woman of both ways. I note this here ONLY because of and for the benefit of Titus, whose comments on earlier caucus threads I had read prior to caucusing. And so this jumped out more than it otherwise likely would have.

One of the (and there were few in the category) best and most articulate arguments I heard tonight--and I was treated to more than just one or two or etc.--was from an Edwards supporter. Very impressive. Not a campaign worker, or a precinct worker. Not a recreational "politics junkie." Clearly shy, under normal circumstance. No one groomed for politics, or who anyone, conventionally speaking, these days, would groom for politics. Clearly, clearly not among the privileged among us, and by privileged, in this context, I mean, at most generous, from the lower-middle-middle (no typo there, folks) class up.

Yet, she was a knock-out. She spoke (one on one, or in smallest of groups) persistently, quietly and passionately, though not emotionally or sentimentally. And I watched person after person listen to her, and not impatiently, once caught up, whether or not they ended up convinced of or even toward her POV.

Sometimes, life reveals an unexpected, and unexpectedly lovely, bloom of hope and grace and grounding.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway, and grateful I am for the experience.

Hey, I thought that was Larry Craig's job, but maybe he doesn't venture out of men's rooms when he does that sort of thing.

Simon, I read your posts. What I can't understand is, for someone who appears to be intelligent, why you engage in a vitriolic rant about Obama (he's "unintelligent" and "phony" are some of your milder comments).

Unlike you (I would wager) or your hero Scalia, Obama was the president of Harvard's Law Review, a position he achieved on merit (not an affirmative action pick). He is probably one of the brightest people running for president, in a field which includes some sharp and educated people (Hillary, Romney, and Rudy are very sharp and accomplished people, academically, anyway). So, I would hardly say he is unintelligent. Sure, disagree with him on the issues, or say (as you do) that his idea of inclusiveness is not very inclusive, but take a stress pill, focus on criticisms of his policy positions, and stop the personal attacks, which are not particularly persuasive and coarsen the discourse.

I think most of the candidates are intelligent and each his or her good and bad qualities as people and leaders. I personally am glad that they present themselves as candidates, which takes courage and a willingness to make considerable personal sacrifices.

"What possible justification could you, or anyone else, have for calling Jeri Thompson a "bimbo"?"

Lookism? Attractivism? There should be a word. Maybe there is.

Desperation. Same thing that drives politico and others to push negative stories. They have to find something wrong with Fred that would irk supposed Huckabee supporters. Only there isn't anything. He's the much, much better choice.

And if they think having an attractive wife is a turnoff to evangelicals, they haven't been watching Christian television.

I believer that the Lutheran and Methodist and Presbyterian churches are all considered evangelical.

Not all. Presbyterians are, for the most part. Methodists and Lutherans can be Evangelicals, but there certainly are substantive parts of each denomination that would not be, or want to be, considered Evangelical.

As far as Evangelical and Fundamentalist, I've long given up trying to make distinctions to people who want them lumped together. It's a rhetorical not historical point they are making. Historically, Evangelicalism was a reaction against the anti-intellectualism and separationism of Fundamentalism back in the 40s. Christianity Today and Fuller Theological Seminary were founded as specific voices for the new movement. Billy Graham was/is its most well known figure. Most real fundamentalists see Evangelicals as sell-outs in one or more area of doctrine.

There is a blurry line in the most conservative ranks, however, especially as 'fundamentalist' has become a pejorative.

Gedaliya said... Simon, you're reaction to Obama is overwrought. He doesn't have what it takes to win the presidency. Besides, his nomination will ensure a Republican victory in November, something I'm sure you will agree is a matter of no small importance.

Obama's main credentials are being a silver-tongued half-black man. Other than that, his bona fides are pretty thin. However, the matchup could be:

1.Obama vs. an Open Borders Fundie who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth but not evolution with a moderate whiff of scandal.

2.Obama vs. a guy who wants to return to gold coins as our main currency and believes the Civil War was unecessary.

3. Obama vs. a well-hated by conservatives guy with a reputation for uncontrolled temper, erratic behavior, Open Borders advocacy and whose main reason for being Prez is that he was captured by the enemy and suffered 40 years ago.

5. Obama vs. the guy that looks vaguely like Noseferatu, wants has more than a whiff of scandal, and screams in a lisp about 9/11!, 9/11!, Evildoers!, DO as Israel wants and bomb Iran! Now!

The Magic Negro despite never doing anything substantive other than elite Law school on affirmative action and "orating" his way through politics has a good shot on all of them. Leaving Romney if he finds a soul to show the public lurking behind the plastic, Fred Thompson forced to consume daily caffeine, or Rudy if he is lucky enough to have another 9/11 happen before the Republican convention (whch he isn't likely to be.)

How you would even consider supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is a complete mystery.

Simon thinks a female President would send a "message" to the world, particularly terrorists. This is similar to those that as religiously as a secular progressive Jew or atheist can believe - that the sight of the Magic Negro as President will make all nations love us and redeem away ally their liberal guilt.

It follows on the early thinking after 9/11 that nothing would demoralize "Evildoers" like seeing females with the US military like "fightin' Jessica Lynch" or the ones 100% safe from AQ's reach bombing from 30,000 feet up. Supposedly, in 2002 - that would cause women to "cast off their Burquas" and launch a wave of feminism throughout the Muslim world that would moderate radical Islam.

Then the theory was a "two-fer" a woman black being NSA advisor then Secretary of State would force nations opposed or critical of us to bend before her powerful black female moral superiority and do our bidding.

That never happened, either.

Simons theory though is that - that wasn't high enough to effect change, but having our own Benazir Bhutto-style "Bitch in Charge" at the very top WILL cow the rest of the planet..

Excellent post by Cedarford. Why don't you have your own blogging site so your views can get a wider reading?

Synova said...

Quite seriously, who has thought for a moment that Obama's race is an issue?

Who? Oh, maybe EVERY black person in America and the rest of planet earth. Maybe White liberals like Bob Wright at Bloggingheads tv who think a black president would send a positive message to the world.

Maybe Obama himself - "I'm probably the only candidate who, having won the nomination, can actually redraw the political map," Obama said at the time. "I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum."

And of course Jesse - Rev. Jesse Jackson took note that "this is the 40th year since the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Tonight he would proud of Barack, proud of Iowa and proud of America."

And - "Democratic consultant Jamal Simmons said Obama's victory "proves that America is changing when it comes to race and politics."

"Winning in Iowa is not winning the nomination, but is very significant," Simmons said. "Tonight Barack Obama has made it more true that every black child in America can do whatever they want to if they work really hard for it."

Let's face it Obamamania is ALL about race, there's nothing else there. You have an empty candidate, who speaks in meaningless generalities, a candidate with NO resume, no executive experience yet who is viewed as the second coming of Jesus with a touch of Sidney Poitier, Mandela, Lincoln, Tiger Woods and MLK mixed in.

If he were White he wouldn't be getting this kind of adulation and support.

But let's be clear. Iowa didn't vote for him. 60+% of the liberal activist caucus goers chose to NOT vote for Obama. He got over 1/3 of the liberal Democrats to vote for him. But apparently to his worshipers in the media that's an overwhelming landslide of "historic" proportions.

I'm a Republican who will pull the R lever (actually mark the dot on OCR form here) for Congressman, Senator, every state, county, and city race down to dogcatcher, then hold my nose and put a big black mark next to the DEMOCRAT presidental candidate if Huckleberry is my party's nominee.

As y'all like to point out about Bush's approval rating, 60+ percent of Iowa Republicans *don't* want Huckabee to be the nominee.

JackDRipper said... Excellent post by Cedarford. Why don't you have your own blogging site so your views can get a wider reading?"

Jack, just a word of caution. When you lead into a post with that observation, NO ONE takes you seriously about anything else. NO ONE. Cedarford's writing ability rests in ctrl -c ctrl -v.

As to your "all about race and nothing else", well that's just baloney and you know it or should. There is nothing to indicate your conclusion. zip. nada.

And of course you fail to explore the Christian miracle that won for Huckleberry. So a folksier Pat Robertson incarnate is in the lead? He will be the perpetual gift to the democratic party and I for one wish him continued success.

Christopher said..."Simon, I read your posts. What I can't understand is, for someone who appears to be intelligent, why you engage in a vitriolic rant about Obama (he's "unintelligent" and "phony" are some of your milder comments)."

I think I've adequatley explained why I'm so viscerally hostile to him in earlier writing, and I'm too drained to write much more this morning. And to be clear, I didn't say he was a moron. I said he was either a moron or totally disingenuous - I'm really not that bothered which, since either would disqualify him from being President. As I said the other week, if he somehow gets elected, I'm buying my neighbour's "not my President" bumper sticker. He

Cedarford, to clarify, I don't support her for President. I want the GOP nominee to win in a landslide. I support Clinton being the Dem nominee because if the Dems are going to win this year, I'd rather get beaten by someone who's minimally competent to do the job and will have some redeeming features.

As I said the other week, if he somehow gets elected, I'm buying my neighbour's "not my President" bumper sticker.

Great, Simon, just great. You've declared yourself, in advance, as one of the first victims of ODS--and we've almost a year to go even to the damn elections. Who knows what's going to happen?

You know what? I am just sick, sick, sick and tired of this bullshit. Whoever gets elected is EVERYBODY'S president. Just as Clinton was, Bush was, and etc. Just as Huckabee will be MY president, should he get elected (and I'm deeply opposed to him, but, thank God, not deranged by it). Got it? That's the way it works..

I mean, what the hell? Next you'll be pulling an Alec Baldwin, he of the grandiose "I'm going to move to [insert country] if Bush gets elected," or however he put it. Ugh. Just ugh.

Birkel said: "Wouldn't it have been nice for Williams to simply acknowledge that Americans (even if 95% of them are white in Iowa) care less about race than Williams does? That would be truly refreshing."

I disagree with you. I saw that segment and Williams said it in a laudatory manner. He was praising the voters and it is his job as a commentator to make observations. This is an historic primary if Obama has won! no matter what you think. IMHO Juan Williams is not a race baiter nor does he comment only on race aspects of an issue. He brings a lib perspective but that is his job just like most NPR employees, Paul Begala, Cynthia Tucker from the AJC, Paul Krugman, etc.

And... you missed the point.

You think Williams' pointing out that Iowans aren't as racist as he previously believed them to be was laudatory? Pass the bong, dude. Bogartin' whatever you're smoking isn't cool and either you're high or you're a moron.

reader_iam said..."Great, Simon, just great. You've declared yourself, in advance, as one of the first victims of ODS--and we've almost a year to go even to the damn elections. Who knows what's going to happen?"

We already know everything that is necessary to know about Obama. And while I wouldn't characterize it as "ODS" - the salient characteristics of both ADS and BDS are their total irrationality and disconnect from reality - I would agree that having myself experienced viscerally repulsion from Obama, I have a better understanding of what the people who have the same reaction to Bush are feeling. I suppose it could be summed up: a sense of anger that so many people are taken in by so little at the cost of so much.

"I mean, what the hell? Next you'll be pulling an Alec Baldwin, he of the grandiose 'I'm going to move to [insert country] if Bush gets elected,' or however he put it."

They don't get rid of me that easily. Unlike Baldwin et al, I plan to stay and fight. The oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic includes defending it from the President, and if necessary, a transient majority. Even if large tracts of the United States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Obamamania, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end; we shall fight in Indiana, we shall fight in Congress, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength throughout America... etc. etc.

MadisonMan said..."This is what I was trying to do from 2000 through 2006."

MM, with all due respect, I mean support and defend the Constitution, not just a very broad construction of a few cherry-picked bits of it out of partisan utility. While I realize this may not apply to you, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of those who've gotten all hot under the collar about "defending the Constitution from Bush" have absolutely no interest in the Constitution. "People use the Constitution when they like what it says, but when it's in the way, they're not very respectful of it," Althouse, quoted in 82 ABA J., Oct. 1996 at 79. For example: As I noted here, the Honorable Majority Leader of the House speaks the language of honoring the Constitution - but same Honorable Majority Leader is also a cosponsor of a bill to give the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress, which is the most blatantly and plainly unconstitutional measure to come before Congress in my lifetime, and he both has and does support any number of federal acts of dubious constitutionality. Other than through the process of Article V, Congress is "not at liberty to add one jot of power to the national government beyond what the people have granted by the constitution; ... we are bound to support that constitution as it stands, and to give a fair and rational scope to all the powers which it clearly contains." Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 48 (1820) (opinion of Story, J.). I don't think it's remotely comparable to compare my position -- which may be many things, but I think even those here who strongly disagree with it would have to concede that it is at least consistent -- with those who've temporarily wrapped the Constitution around themselves in order to fight George the Dragon and who will recoil from it as a fashionista from last season's shoes when a Democrat takes the White House.